Clark 1

Evaluation and Critique of the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III

Matt Clark

Philosophy, Pichette

11/17/2016

Section 1: Foundational Humanist Propositions that oppose Christianity

 Clark 2

1. Religious Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. (HM1,

aff 1) This statement directly contradicts one of the most basic beliefs of Christianity,

which is that the world is designed by God, the creator, and only exists because God

wanted it to exist.
2. Man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous

process. (HM1, aff 2) This statement refers to the theory of evolution, which goes

against Christian doctrine. Christians believe that they were intelligently designed and

placed here by God, not that humanity was spawned out of nature.
3. The nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any

supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. (HM1, aff 5) Since this attempts to

shut down the belief in any God figure, this contradicts Christianity at its most basic

point. In more detail however, this also talks about how science disproves the belief in

the supernatural, whereas Christians strongly believe that science does more to prove

their beliefs than it does to disprove.

4. Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to

be the end of a mans life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.

(HM1, Aff. 8) While this belief may conform with eastern religions such as Buddhism,

being the Humanists version of enlightenment, in no way does it coincide with

Christianity. Christians believe that the purpose of life is to love God and strive to please

him, whereas this statement by the Humanists says that the goal of ones life is over once

they are able to fully understand humans.

5. Humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of

personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being. (HM1, aff 9) The

term religious emotions is very vague, but most likely it refers to the feeling of
 Clark 3

completion and connection to the religion. Humanists say that they get this feeling with

working well in society, while Christians believe that you should not base your belief in

God on emotions or faith alone.

6. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give

personal meaning and inspiration to human life.(HM2, para. 9) Christians believe that

Christ is more fulfilling than anything the world can offer. This Humanist belief

contradicts the beliefs of Christianity in the way that it replaces God with itself, saying

that becoming a Humanist will fulfill your life.

7. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.(HM2, aff 1.) The entirety of the

Christian message is how man fell and how God gave them the opportunity to be saved

through the death of Jesus. This Humanist view puts all of the pressure onto the person

instead of letting God take control as Christians do.

8. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and

harmful.(HM2, aff 2.) Christian beliefs state that if you choose God in this life and

make him Lord along with repenting your sins, you may receive eternal life. However,

those who reject God will be eternally separated from Him eternally. Humanists think

that all beliefs that include anything after this life are delusional.
9. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.(HM2,

aff 3) From a Christian worldview, humans have a basic set of moral values that are

implanted upon all humans as a result of the specific creation of these laws by God.

Humans have not created these laws, but rather, God has ingrained them in their

conscience. Humanists believe that these laws are subjective to each person and differ

based on each persons experience.

10. (Freedom) includes a recognition of an individuals right to die with dignity,

euthanasia, and the right to suicide. (HM2, aff 7) In Christianity, God is seen as both the

life-giver and taker. To go outside of these boundaries would be going against God.
 Clark 4

Humanists on the other hand believe that each individual has a right to chose their death,

including suicide.

Section 2: Logical Fallacies

1. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is

either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfilment of the

human race. (HM2, aff 1)This statement is an ad lapidem, since the supernatural is being

dismissed as being an absurd idea that is completely unprovable and worthless, without

providing any reason for these attacks. It can also be considered an argument from

silence because they are saying that there isnt enough evidence to disprove that there is

no supernatural, therefore there is no supernatural.

2. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and

harmful Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ghost in the machine

and the separable soul. Also, There is no credible evidence that life survives the death
 Clark 5

of the body. (HM2, aff 2) This is another argument from silence since the Humanists are

believing that something is true purely because there is not enough evidence to prove

that there is an afterlife. The only way that this claim could be made would be if a poll

was taken consisting of a mixture of christians and non-christians who all came back

from the dead.

3. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. (HM2, aff

3) This is a non-sequitur since the presented premises do not lead to the conclusion of

human life having meaning. Even going past the premises not leading to the conclusion,

this statement is completely subjective since life having meaning is completely

subjective.
4. We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism- male or female. We believe in

equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as

they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.(HM2, aff 11) This statement is

contradictory to other Humanist beliefs which say that you should not question the views

of other people. Humanists make this logical fallacy multiple times with having a basic

idea that they say people should live by, but then later pointing out more specific things

in society and feeling a certain way about that thing that contradicts what was stated

earlier in the manifesto.

5. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established (HM1, aff

14). In the second manifesto however, humanists refer to political democracy, civil

liberties, and a Bill of Rights as the ideal form of government (HM2, aff 7). These two

separate views of how a government should be run, show a contradiction fallacy

committed by the writers of the Manifesto. This is a contradiction because the two

different types of government that the Humanists go over are completely opposite of one

another, yet the Manifestos are inconsistent as to which one they think society should
 Clark 6

follow. While the first type of government consists of government control and socialism,

the other pushes for people control and an overall more democratic society.
6. We, assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; seek to elicit

the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of

a satisfactory life for all, not merely the few (HM1, aff 15). This is showing cultural

subjectivism since the idea of what a satisfactory life consists of, is never explained.

Also, each persons idea of what that life might be like, would be different making it

subjective, so therefore the Humanists are not logically able to make this claim.
7. Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural

evolutionary forces (HM2, aff 2). This statement is a fallacy on multiple levels, mainly

being an appeal to authority since they are not making their own belief statements but are

rather just following what a portion of the scientific authority says. The Humanists are

also making a generalization that makes it seem as if all of the scientific community

consider the theory of evolution to be true, which is not the case, there are many scientists

who support creation.

8. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of

genuine spiritual experience and aspiration. (HM2, aff 1) This statement commits a no

true scotsman fallacy, which is a fallacy by using the word genuine. Humanists are

claiming that Christians spiritual view is not genuine, therefore discrediting it.
9. The statements Ethics is autonomous and situational (HM2, aff 3) and The

principle of moral equality must be furthered (HM2, aff 11) are in direct contradiction to

one another. The statement in Aff 3 is basically saying that ethics should be subjective

and should come as a result of each persons experiences and even that they can change

from situation to situation. The claim from Aff 11 however, states that morals should

become more equal and should have an objective set standard.

 Clark 7

10. Salvation, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people

with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for

survival. (HM2, para 2) This statement is a logical fallacy, but its meaning must be

dissected in order to find what fallacy it encompasses. I believe that it is an ad hominem,

which is a direct attack on someone, because if you look at the words reasonable

minds, it can be assumed that Humanists are calling religious people the exact opposite,

claiming that they are unreasonable minds. Also, this statement is a non sequitur, since

the first sentence refers to an afterlife and the second sentence is talking about means for

survival.
11. The humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of

personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well being. (HM1, aff 9)

Despite making this claim, earlier and throughout the rest of the manifestos, Humanists

show a disdain for all religion and push to have their knowledge stem purely from

science and experience, rather than emotions. This should therefore be considered a

contradiction to itself.
 Clark 8

Section 3: Hard Questions

1. Where do human morals come from, in what ways are they universal, and why

should they be followed? I would mainly ask this question in order to get more

information about the statements/fallacies made in the Humanists proposal of what ethics

should be like. Since one of the most basic principles of Humanism is for the Humanist

to fulfill their lives how they would see fit, morals would therefore be completely

subjective. There are many contradictions throughout the manifestos on this subject

however, with some instances saying that there should be a moral standard and other

areas stating that the ethical values of a person should be completely based on situations

and experiences. I would like to know which of these the Humanists want to go with,

and if they decide that there should be a set moral standard, where would that standard

come from considering there is no authoritative God figure. On the other hand if they

would decide that morals are completely subjective, how then would they continue to

strive for a better society as one unit if everyone would do whatever they feel is right.
2. If there is no afterlife, then what are we attempting to save ourselves from? In

one particular portion of the second manifesto, Humanists make the claim that no deity

will save them, they must save themselves. Due to the fact that Humanists have no belief

in anything outside this life, including no belief in the supernatural or an afterlife, this

then brings up the question of what we are saving ourselves from. Not only does this

bring into question the object of what we are saving ourselves from, but also the means to

how we would save ourselves from that thing. Since Humanists biggest belief is

fulfillment through living a good life, would that be the only way to save yourself?
 Clark 9

3. What is the overall purpose of life, and how should we strive to attain that

purpose? This is a part of Humanism that if looked at to the most basic sense, it can be

determined that their lifes purpose is to lead a fulfilling life. This is very vague however,

and completely subjective. It is in this particular part of Humanism, that I begin to

question how much unity there is between every Humanist. The Manifestos seem to be

very clear as to how they set up their beliefs that there should not be much of a difference

in views between its followers, yet the vagueness and subjectivity that goes with this

question along with many others, bring the actual ideas of Humanism into question.

Since a vague argument is considered a fallacy, I would argue that everything related to

the purpose of life in the Manifestos would therefore be a fallacy.

4. Since Humanists are constantly turning back to science to find their true

knowledge, how is it that they believe that the universe is self existing? I personally

think this is maybe the biggest and most obvious flaw with Humanism. Throughout each

of the Manifestos, there are very frequent references to how science is their ultimate

authority, and yet somehow, the first proposition of their first Manifesto goes completely

against the scientific community. Not one legitimate and credible scientist, including

atheists and religious people, believes that the universe is self existing. Whether it be the

big bang theory or creation, science says that there was a start to the universe. This

contradiction to the Humanists appeal to science as their lead can be the ultimate way to

completely take away the credibility of Humanism as a worldview.

5. Why should I help others if the only reason for my life is for it to be fulfilling to

my own self? Throughout my reading of the Manifestos, I was in constant confusion

about what they truly believe about ethics. The inconsistency of their ideas is mind

boggling, and is a major problem in the credibility of their entire set of guidelines on
 Clark 10

what they believe. One specific area that confused me was the idea of helping others. In

all three of the papers, it is constantly said that you should do what makes your life

fulfilling, yet they also say that you should help others because it will be fulfilling. If

they are going to make the way we find our purpose subjective, then it is a fallacy for

them to say something will be fulfilling for us if that thing is objective. The Humanists

could probably get away with this idea if they had completely said to serve others only

for the doers own benefit, but they put it on a more broad scale that all of the sudden

pushes Humanists to do good for society.

Section 4: Counter Arguments

1. One major counter argument to a portion of Humanism is to that of objective

morality. Humanists clearly said Ethics is autonomous and situational stems from

human need and interest. (HM2 Aff 3) Basically, this is saying that moral values are

completely different for each individual and can change depending on the situation. The

easiest way to tear this idea apart is to present a situation in which this subjectivism
 Clark 11

would be used. Say there was a homeless man in a busy public park. This homeless man

decides that he needs to steal a womans purse, so he goes and does so, and in the

struggle with the woman, he winds up murdering her. Now, would there be a common

emotional reaction by the bystanders in the park? The answer is yes, all of the people

surrounding the incident would have the same objective view of morality, causing them

to view what the man just did as wrong. The situation continues as the man goes to court

and for his statement says I thought that stealing the womans purse was the right thing

to do for me, so I did it and in the struggle the best way for me to get the purse was to kill

her so I did just that. Would the court second guess their decision to sentence the man

for murder and theft because he felt it was the moral thing to do for him? The answer is

no, each member of the court would see his actions as wrong and would therefore inflict

the just punishment for his actions. By Humanist beliefs, this man would have done no

wrong. The reactions of everyone else in the story show that there must be some sense of

objective morality instilled in every human that dictates the way that we live our lives.

This is a morality that is unique to our species, and the only obvious explanation for

why it is there is that is was placed inside of s by a creator.

2. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created(HM1

Aff 1). Contrary to this belief however, recent scientific discoveries have found that the

universe did have a beginning. In honor of leading cosmologist Stephen Hawkings

birthday, Hawking asked a group of some of the smartest scientists in his field to give a

brief state of our knowledge of the universe speech at his party. Most of these men

being atheist, they walked on stage and simply said that all the evidence points to the

universe having a beginning, whether it be natural or supernatural. In the basic laws of

an argument, if statement A is true and statement B is true, then there can be an obvious
 Clark 12

true conclusion from the information given in the first two statements. Therefore, if

everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the

universe must have a cause. This makes it clear that there was a cause and since the

universe is all of nature, it cannot create itself since there is no empirical evidence of

anything creating itself. It can therefore be inferred that the most rational idea is that the

cause is an intelligent creator that is outside of nature.

3. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary

change. (HM3, Para 4) This brings forth the question as to what the reason for creating

a religion based on a species that just randomly came out of nature for no obvious

reason? This evolutionary idea is very outdated and is in no means accurate in

accounting for human origin and development. Humanists pride themselves on being

believers in intellect and reason, and by the evidence we have the simplest and most

reasonable solution to the origin of humans is that there was a creator. Looking at the

complexity of the human body, from the intricacy of cells to the amazing ability for the

body to send messages through electricity to any point of the body, and most importantly

the ability to create things themselves, it is obvious that there was an intelligent mind

behind the creation of the human species.

 Clark 13

Section 5: Conclusion

In conclusion, I am very appalled as to how inconsistent and riddled with fallacies the

Humanist Manifestos are, especially considering the number of people who consider themselves

to be Humanists. The entirety of the Manifestos are full of self contradictions and non-sequiturs,

which are conclusions that cannot logically be achieved as a result of the given premises. Since

Humanists claim to follow closely to science and strive to follow intelligence rather than

emotion, they should therefore be able to construct an effect statement of beliefs. Their efforts

were not successful however, with their so called set of beliefs being more of a wish list for how

Humanists would want the world to be like.

Common to many worldviews and religions which have questionable doctrine, the

Humanists resort to committing many ad hominems, general attacks, on religious people, saying
 Clark 14

that Christians and other religious people are irrational and delusional in many different ways.

This is what happens when a group has no good logical counterarguments to make against their

attackers and are therefore only able to insult. The common saying sticks and stones may break

my bones, but words will never hurt me, comes into play here, and I have no doubts about my

faith as a result of these attacks

In conclusion, I believe that Humanism is completely flawed and no logical mind should

knowingly decide to follow its Manifestos. For a group of people who believe that they closely

follow science and intellect, their blueprint for how to be a good Humanist is extremely flawed,

to the e point where many difficult questions come about simply to decypher the message they

are trying to convey. With its main points of concern being in ethics, the existence of the world,

the supernatural, and the purpose of life, I feel like the only real use for the Manifesto would be

for someone to double check to make sure that they are not living his or her life in a Humanist

way.